Michael P. writes:
Thanks, Brad, for not reacting to this. Michael was off-base.
=====
I see, so Brad can snort but I can't retort. More fool me for reacting, I
suppose, unless there was nothing against which to react of course.
I'll explain my animus. I'm usually pleased that there are various views
being expressed here. Diversity adds to the richness of the discussion. A
recent example of this was when Louis raised objections to doubts regarding
the legitimacy of reparations to African Americans, as if such doubts could
not hold water. The practicalities of even beginning to think about
administering these were brought to light by others in such a way as to shed
light on what is a very complex issue. Louis did not refute these
contributions, given as they were in a constructive spirit. I object
strongly, however, to repeated smart-ass intrusions by an allegedly
"brilliant" economist who deigns to spend time with the progressively
inclined for a) amusement, b) self-delusion, c) confirmation of prejudice,
or d) a combination of the above. Some of the most gifted economists I have
ever encountered feature regularly in list discussions here, and I learn
loads, regardless of whatever political differences may exist between them
and me, between themselves. But these very same technically very gifted
folks would never stand a chance before an appointments committee at UC
Berkeley or most other institutions precisely because of the disciplinary
culture of condescension regularly displayed by the "brilliant" economist
who applauds the correctness of at least half of the Pritchett/Summers World
Bank memo, who defends the disgusting Schleifer on the basis of technically
correct economics, who gives lectures to all and sundry on the history of
countries about which he knows very little (including the United States),
and who regularly resorts to snide asides and red-baiting when all else
fails (as it very quickly does).
In mitigation of the above, however, Brad's repeatedly preposterous
assertions serve a very useful purpose. What is the character of a
discipline and its unrepentant practitioners that can praise the technical
correctness of dumping toxic waste in poorer countries? That can produce to
order analyses "showing" public bad, private good independently of the
actions of its practitioners involved in the fire sale of state assets
conducted on the basis of a) how it supports the regime that supports me,
and b) how it can enrich me personally? In other words, who would want to be
an "economist" if it involves being associated with what Jim O'Connor and
Doug Henwood have correctly called a criminal enterprise?
Back to the IMF -- as Brad may snort over the idea of Britain's march to
socialism halted in 1976, might we all not pop a few pills over the idea of
the IMF as a _victim_ of fiscal crisis!?
As Mark Jones pointed out, Callaghan et al. never took the loans. But the
conditions attached to them remained. Since Brad is clearly sympathetic to
Callaghan personally, it is interesting to note that the very sympathetic
biography of Callaghan by Kenneth O. Morgan (Oxford UP, 1997) features
analysis that blames the IMF for the unnecessarily austere policies of his
remaining term. The alarm that led to the crisis in the first place was
caused by hopelessly inaccurate Treasury forecasts, a point made by
Callaghan (a former Chancellor with experience of devaluation and misleading
Treasury forecasts), Healey and Morgan, among many, many others. These were
made in a context of alarmist analysis, including that penned by Peter Jay
for William Rees-Mogg's "Times" in which Jay opined on a continuous
demand-pull inflation leading to either revolution or the emergence of a
"strong man" of the right. This sort of thing was typical of the times, and
expressed a commonly held Establishment view that "something had to be
done". Hence Walter Walker, Louis Mountbatten, Airey Neave, Peter Wright,
Martin Gilbert, Chapman Pincher, William Waldegrave, Aims of Industry, the
Economic League, Alfred Sherman, the McWhirters, and an out-of-control
"security" apparatus acting to undermine its democratically elected
"overseers".
And most everyone agrees that the policies imposed by the IMF on the UK were
inappropriate (except Brad, William Simon and Arthur Burns). Which brings me
back to the original point, that the IMF's 1976 intervention was remarkable
for the severity of its policy package, and, moreso, for the manner in which
it was concocted and imposed. Again, the pathologically reductionist
tendencies of orthodox economists lead Brad to praise the "economics" of the
package (themselves dubious) whilst ignoring completely (in good IMF
fashion) the wider context in which it was administered. The IMF's
intervention was at the very least as much a POLITICAL act that had
far-reaching consequences, including the rise to power of Thatcher, her
enactment of undiluted neoliberal structural adjustment that led inexorably
to the tragedy of the miners' strike of 1984/5 and the ruthlessness of its
suppression by the instruments of the state that she otherwise professed to
disdain. To have to assert this point repeatedly on a list like this should
give pause for thought.
Michael K.
